Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[RC Tent]

It's all irrelevant because faith based claims can not be and should not be taken on equal grounds to scientific research, with respect to scientific studies and observation of material studied in science.

Equal? Meaning as though they are the same...no they are not the same.
God is far superior to any current claims of science.

People trying to follow God are not perfect, and people interpreting scientific discoveries are not perfect.

scientism involves...aliens?

Scientism is the belief that only what science can prove is true - atheist materialist philosophy.

Scientology involves aliens.

Christianity involves an incarnating deity and telekinetic mountain shifting.

You don't have a cheese moon yet though....

 

[RC Tent]

But some people's religion said that the Sun goes around the Earth, that black people are inferior to white people, and that disease was caused by demons.

Subjectively the sun does go round the earth.

The same religion used to justify racism also counters it, people are fallible, as I said.

Ignorance as to the causes of disease is caused by demons, they keep us from knowing what causes disease and keep us from knowing what cures disease, as in every other way they block the truth if they can.

The problem with religion, is it is in the hands of people - they are fallible.

Agreed.

So, science cannot save us from the fact we are people, and nor can religion, God on the other hand, can pull it off.

 

[Go Braves]

Thanks for sharing the amusing fictional rantings of a science fiction writer.

 

[Job 33:6]

Science is nothing more, fundamentally, than observation of God's work. Gods word is what we describe. Which is just as important as scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

I

Oh I don't think it proves that anything in science is wrong.

Science is in the hands of people - it is that people factor that is an issue.

Granted religion is also at the mercy of correct response to it from people.

Neither are the way to check on reality - God is the arbiter of reality.

It doesn't matter if people are a factor in the Manhattan project. The atom bomb was real demonstrating the reality of the science. unless you don't actually believe that millions of people died at the hands of the bomb itself.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh I don't think it proves that anything in science is wrong.

Science is in the hands of people - it is that people factor that is an issue.

Granted religion is also at the mercy of correct response to it from people.

Neither are the way to check on reality - God is the arbiter of reality.

People can have subjective opinions about topics however such opinions can bemonstrated objectively. In the case of the atom bomb in the Manhattan project mankind demonstrated that it had an objective understanding of physical reality, thus producing a physically real bomb. Faith based opinions cannot change the objective reality of the research which produced the atom bomb.

 

[Job 33:6]

I I like to think of this topic in terms of geology. In geology certain rocks are hard such as quartzite. There is no faith-based opinion that can change the reality that quartzite is a hard rock. It is objectively hard and can be tested as such. It is heavy and destroys physical matter, when objects are rubbed up against it. And no opinion can change this it simply is as God has created it.

The same goes for planet Earth it is old, it simply is as God has created it and no opinion of scripture can change that, it simply is as it is.

and if someone has a perception of scripture that leads them to believe that quartzite is soft, their opinion is irrelevant because no opinion can change the density and weight and physical nature of what quartzite is.

no opinion can change the fact that if 1000 lb of quartzite were dropped on someone's head it would crush their skull.

And just the same no opinion can change the physical nature of an old planet it simply is as it is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But some people's religion said that the Sun goes around the Earth, that black people are inferior to white people, and that disease was caused by demons.

Subjectively the sun does go round the earth.

Objectively, the Earth goes around the Sun. This is the difference between a scientific approach to nature and a religious approach to nature.

The same religion used to justify racism also counters it, people are fallible, as I said.

But a scientific approach makes it clear that there are no biological human races. This is why it's so unusual to find a racist biologist (there are some, but not many); science shows race is merely a cultural construct. It turns out that there is more genetic variation within any "races" you might define, than there is between them.

Ignorance as to the causes of disease is caused by demons,

And there were more effective demons before the 1800s?

Sounds like a tribe of coastal native Americans in California. Their territory went from the coast to the high mountains. They noticed that the higher up they went, the longer it took to cook food. They came up with a religious explanation that worked for them. They decided that evil spirits interfered with cooking. And the concentration of evil spirits increased with altitude.

So, science cannot save us from the fact we are people, and nor can religion, God on the other hand, can pull it off.

Unfortunately, God hasn't published in science journals. While He left us excellent instruction on morals and our way to salvation, He hasn't weighed in on scientific issues.

 

[NobleMouse]

Unless you have a decidedly odd definition of "information", this is trivially false. We see new genetic information appear spontaneously all the time -- in the lab and in the wild. In your own body, you have information in your DNA coding for thousands of specific antibodies, each tuned to one of the microbial pathogens you've encountered in your life. You weren't born with that information, so where do you think it came from?

I'd like to see the research where new genetic information was observed spontaneously appearing, repeatedly such that a new, complex body plan eventually resulted. Nobody's done it to date, but you could be the first...

How is it the human body able to develop a resistance to bacteria if it doesn't already have the information giving the ability to respond and adapt (ie. develop a "resistance" in the first place). The information was already there (not new information created)... and I'm still human. Antibody creation as a demonstration for proving things like dinosaurs evolving into birds is a no-go for me.

For the benefit of the group here, neo-Darwinian evolution is not just rejected by creationists, but other groups as well - may save us all some time in needless debates over a dying hypothesis:

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd like to see the research where new genetic information was observed spontaneously appearing, repeatedly such that a new, complex body plan eventually resulted. Nobody's done it to date, but you could be the first...

So there's been a bit of a retreat. Now it's "show me where you observed a new complex body plan evolving." Since you can't observe a giant redwood tree grow to maturity from a seed, you think it doesn't happen? Why do creationists think that's a clever new dodge? Anyone would see it for what it is.

How is it the human body able to develop a resistance to bacteria if it doesn't already have the information giving the ability to respond and adapt (ie. develop a "resistance" in the first place).

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So for example, resistance to bubonic plague happened when the CCR5-Ä32 mutation occurred. In Europe, which was encountering the plague, the gene became widespread. Mutation and natural selection.

The information was already there (not new information created).

Wrong. A mutation produced a new allele that provided protection. The new information happened to be effective against the disease.

For the benefit of the group here, neo-Darwinian evolution is not just rejected by creationists, but other groups as well

Turns out, a lot fewer of you are rejecting science, these days...

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

Creationism is slowly dying as fewer and fewer people buy into the man-made doctrine of YE creationism.

may save us all some time in needless debates over a dying hypothesis:

Doctrine. A hypothesis is a testable claim. YE creationism is a dying doctrine.

 

[Job 33:6]

"So there's been a bit of a retreat. Now it's "show me where you observed a new complex body plan evolving"

I saw that too. The subtle goal post swap lol

 

[sfs]

I'd like to see the research where new genetic information was observed spontaneously appearing, repeatedly such that a new, complex body plan eventually resulted.

I'd like to see that research, too, since that would be an absolutely stunning and unexpected find, given how extremely hew new, complex body plans there have been in the multi-billion year history of life on the entire planet. What does that have to do with your claim, though, that natural processes couldn't produce the information? Does this mean that you now agree that natural processes can produce large amounts of information, but that they can't produce the information needed for body plans?

How is it the human body able to develop a resistance to bacteria if it doesn't already have the information giving the ability to respond and adapt (ie. develop a "resistance" in the first place).

It can't. How is that your question has nothing to do with the subject at hand -- the ability of natural processes to produce information. Do you think your body produced the new information by natural processes or not? It seems like a pretty straight-forward question.

Antibody creation as a demonstration for proving things like dinosaurs evolving into birds is a no-go for me.

Since I've never seen anyone suggest that antibody creation proves anything about dinosaurs or birds, I guess everyone is on the same page. But we're talking about the creation of information, right?

For the benefit of the group here, neo-Darwinian evolution is not just rejected by creationists, but other groups as well

Neo-Darwinian evolution was rejected by mainstream biology, starting at least in the 60s. I certainly reject it. So what? Evolutionary biology is still the core of biology, accepted by virtually all biologists of any and all faiths. Common descent has been accepted as a scientific fact for a century and is only becoming more secure with time, and the central role of natural selection to adaptive evolution is understood with more nuance now, but has not been seriously disputed.

 

[sfs]

So for example, resistance to bubonic plague happened when the CCR5-Ä32 mutation occurred. In Europe, which was encountering the plague, the gene became widespread.

Arghhh! No, it didn't. That was somebody's preliminary conclusion, but it was overturned by multiple pieces of evidence. This is a zombie finding that just will not die. There are lots of better examples, e.g. lactose tolerance in Europeans and East Africans, high altitude adaptations in Tibet and the Andes, numerous skin pigmentation mutations.

ETA: Note, one of the papers rejecting the CCR5-Δ32 story included as author the researcher behind the original claim. (I was also an author on the same paper.)

 

[Job 33:6]

I remember reading of a mutation in...I believe it was swedish people? Who have increased bone density.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605941

 

[The Barbarian]

Arghhh! No, it didn't. That was somebody's preliminary conclusion, but it was overturned by multiple pieces of evidence. This is a zombie finding that just will not die. There are lots of better examples, e.g. lactose tolerance in Europeans and East Africans, high altitude adaptations in Tibet and the Andes, numerous skin pigmentation mutations.

ETA: Note, one of the papers rejecting the CCR5-Δ32 story included as author the researcher behind the original claim. (I was also an author on the same paper.)

Oops. Sorry.

 

[RC Tent]

I


It doesn't matter if people are a factor in the Manhattan project. The atom bomb was real demonstrating the reality of the science. unless you don't actually believe that millions of people died at the hands of the bomb itself.

You might wish to note that I am not saying science is not real, or never discovers anything real - I am saying it is not an adequate means of discovering everything that is real, or testing for reality.

It can make discoveries about the physical or natural realm of existence - it cannot disprove the supernatural, indeed, in my opinion, it has no means of accurately exploring the spiritual.

 

[RC Tent]

Faith based opinions cannot change the objective reality of the research which produced the atom bomb.

I agree there is some objectivity in science - but human beings decided to make that weapon, choice and opinion that it was required, that it would shorten the war, motivated the discovery. The choices of human beings made that bomb real. The choices of human beings lead to the knowledge that lead to the theory that it could be done too.

So, to say that opinion does not change reality is wrong - it drives decisions which do impact on reality. It is true that everything is not simply how each person says it is, but that cannot be extrapolated to "opinion cannot impact on reality".

 

[RC Tent]

Unfortunately, God hasn't published in science journals. While He left us excellent instruction on morals and our way to salvation, He hasn't weighed in on scientific issues.

Unless God is actually the spiritual source of all good scientific information, which being the designer and creator of the whole lot I believe He is.

No, He did not leave us with a manual that can be followed such that we do not need to explore and use our intelligence to discover the physical properties of existence. That is why we created science - a choice to study and explore the physical, because it is there. As far as I am concerned He totally has weighed in on scientific issues - through interactive contact. Creating the physical world in the first place (whatever mechanisms and processes are involved) - was weighing in on science imho.

 

[RC Tent]

Objectively, the Earth goes around the Sun. This is the difference between a scientific approach to nature and a religious approach to nature.

No, there is no such thing as a "scientific" versus "religious" approach to nature...there is science, there is religion, there is art, there is maths, there is philosophy, there is history....every single one of those subjects can relate to nature. Science is not the only one that can tell us something that is true.

If a text refers to what something looks like it is a valid true description - of what it looks like, if that text is one that is associated with a religion, such as the Bible, it still a good description of an appearance of a thing.

You assume religion was at some point in time trying to be modern science, therefore it failed. This is nothing but an assumption you make. You speak as though anything that refers to the physical or natural worlds is trying to be science - it is not.

And there were more effective demons before the 1800s?

There were demons having a lot of fun with our ignorance about germs and disease for a while yes. It is not either it was demons, or it was germs, it was demons enjoying our ignorance about germs. Now they have to mess with our awareness of truth in other ways, trying to stop us understanding things we still do not know. That is what they do, they try to blockade or mess with our understanding of reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree there is some objectivity in science - but human beings decided to make that weapon, choice and opinion that it was required, that it would shorten the war, motivated the discovery. The choices of human beings made that bomb real. The choices of human beings lead to the knowledge that lead to the theory that it could be done too.

So, to say that opinion does not change reality is wrong - it drives decisions which do impact on reality. It is true that everything is not simply how each person says it is, but that cannot be extrapolated to "opinion cannot impact on reality".

I never said that people couldn't make choices to physically manipulate reality.

In the case of an old earth, no human can change the existance of an old earth. There is no choice we can make. Nor can we make rocks soft, nor can we make the moon transform into cheese.

My opinion can change reality, in the sense that I can choose to manipulate reality. But my opinion alone, my thoughts or ideas alone, cannot change reality.

The topic has to do with evolution. No persons faith based ideas can change whether or not descent with modification occurs. Nor can someone's faith based ideas change the fact that there is a fossil succession with transitionals. These simply exist in physical reality.